The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ekancone

For those who haven't heard of this guys videos, you can find them here. Excuse the phrase, but they are a god-send for those of us who don't have the time to indulge in all the sciences. (Me!)

http://ie.youtube.com/user/cdk007

Killbot2000

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. Scientific research has completely debunked the myth of young Earth. - That is the issue being debated on this thread, so a statement of it doesn't further things.

2. minimum viable population.- I take it that is based on genetics. The biosphere at the Flood would have had far less genetic load than we have today, so the problem did not arise. Same applies, only more so, for the Edenic biosphere.

Well it's not only genetic, but let's run with your argument. All of the animals on the Ark must have existed prior to being stowed away. So every species on the planet came to a bottleneck event at the time of the flood leaving only two of each. This would leave a genetic signature (which can be seen in cheetahs 10,000 years ago but not in other species).

Anyway, why would there be a genetic load of 0 for all species. Once a population starts reproducing there will be shifts away from the mean. Or was Noah capable of performing a vast genetic screening project on all of the animals pre Flood!

To come back to the MVP concept, it also considers random events that can imperil a species' survival such as freak weather conditions and disease. I'm pretty sure that such factors existed after the flood.

Ekancone

Killbot2000 wrote: »

To come back to the MVP concept, it also considers random events that can imperil a species' survival such as freak weather conditions and disease. I'm pretty sure that such factors existed after the flood.

Lets not forget the millions of tonnes of rotting flesh lying about everywhere.

Killbot2000

daithifleming wrote: »

Lets not forget the millions of tonnes of rotting flesh lying about everywhere.

Dead weight!

The whole argument that the carnivores could survive on rotting carcasses is infantile. Many predators will refuse to scavenge e.g. cheetahs.

Ekancone

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Dead weight!

The whole argument that the carnivores could survive on rotting carcasses is infantile. Many predators will refuse to scavenge e.g. cheetahs.

With good reason, rotting meat makes most animals ill or are likely to spread disease.

Scofflaw

daithifleming wrote: »

With good reason, rotting meat makes most animals ill or are likely to spread disease.

Ah no, it would be alright if it was salty, surely? Admittedly it would have been in the water for more than a month, but the salt would have helped preserve it.

amused,
Scofflaw

riftfiend

Right. I have just two things to say based on some reading of the last few pages of these posts.

• Hot Dog asked JC for a reason as to why the Caladonian mountains of Ireland, Norway and North America are at their present level( ie the granitic and metamorphic cores). This question presumably was also intended to include even more ancient mountain belts such as the Grenvillian (Annagh Gneiss Complex, predominantly granulite facies rocks and are very worn down) and the younger Variscan Mountains ( including their irish expression the mcgillycuddy reeks). JC’s answer was along the lines of the flood was easily capable of eroding the mountains down. My question is; how can it be that these mountains were so eroded - some to the point that the only way we can tell they were there is from the intense metamorphism and complex structure – and other mountains such as the alps, andes and the Himalayas (≥8km tall,) are at their present height if the flood was capable of eroding the older mountains away?
• My next point is that given that the flood covered the earth it would imply the mountains were also covered. If this is so then there would have to be a further 8km of water added to the Earth – increasing the diameter of the planet by 16km – in order to do this. Disregarding the obvious problems with this, where did it come from and then go, the flood coupled with the “runaway subduction” and vastly more energetic tectonic regimes would cause very serious problems for the inhabitants of our beloved planet. These problems would very likely manifest as follows.

The vast out pourings or basaltic lava at ocean spreading centres and felsic eruptions and intrusions associated with subduction as well as intra plate hotspot activity would produce an immense amount of heat which would then cause a huge amount of evaporation and release water vapour into the air (water vapour is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2). The insulating effect of the water vapour would cause global warming on a massive scale. This together with the outpouring of CO2 and CH4 from the various volcanic extrusions and would cause a massive increase in global temperature. The athmosphere based on the level of water present on earth at the time of the flood would also become incredibly thick and dense and so exert immense pressure on the planet. (WE are probably going to be talking a venus like atmospheric pressure, and so enough to crush a submarine). Themelting of all ice on the planet would also be disastrous as there would be extreme oxygen stratification of the oceans due to the disruption of the thermohaline currents, this would serve tocompound the effect of the ridiculously waters of the flood and cause a catastrophic anoxic event which would not allow benthic and deep water organisms to survive. But this would not even need to happen since most life f not all would not survive due to the inhospitable climate and pressures that would result from a global flood and extremely (fantastically) energetic tectonic processes.
So if anyone would like to explain how it is possible for life to have actually survived such a hell on earth I would love to know. It is just not feasible that this happened at all and I reiterate my previous comment that the the story is just a story and that paper does not refuse ink!

pH

I must say I'm pretty convinced by the whole fish eating carnivores thing, after all there is this ...



And I mean, what more evidence could a creationist need?

2Scoops

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah no, it would be alright if it was salty, surely? Admittedly it would have been in the water for more than a month, but the salt would have helped preserve it.

Not to mention that Created Kinds™ had so much extra genetic information that they were easily able to digest rotting meat - an ability that was lost after the thousands of years of genetic degradation subsequent to The Fall.

2Scoops

Could fish and other aquatic life survive in a catastrophic flood? With all the turbulent waters and super-heated magma cooling, surely they would be killed? Was there a huge decrease in the fish population after the flood, too?

bogwalrus

riftfiend wrote: »

Right. I have just two things to say based on some reading of the last few pages of these posts.

• Hot Dog asked JC for a reason as to why the Caladonian mountains of Ireland, Norway and North America are at their present level( ie the granitic and metamorphic cores). This question presumably was also intended to include even more ancient mountain belts such as the Grenvillian (Annagh Gneiss Complex, predominantly granulite facies rocks and are very worn down) and the younger Variscan Mountains ( including their irish expression the mcgillycuddy reeks). JC’s answer was along the lines of the flood was easily capable of eroding the mountains down. My question is; how can it be that these mountains were so eroded - some to the point that the only way we can tell they were there is from the intense metamorphism and complex structure – and other mountains such as the alps, andes and the Himalayas (≥8km tall,) are at their present height if the flood was capable of eroding the older mountains away?
• My next point is that given that the flood covered the earth it would imply the mountains were also covered. If this is so then there would have to be a further 8km of water added to the Earth – increasing the diameter of the planet by 16km – in order to do this. Disregarding the obvious problems with this, where did it come from and then go, the flood coupled with the “runaway subduction” and vastly more energetic tectonic regimes would cause very serious problems for the inhabitants of our beloved planet. These problems would very likely manifest as follows.

The vast out pourings or basaltic lava at ocean spreading centres and felsic eruptions and intrusions associated with subduction as well as intra plate hotspot activity would produce an immense amount of heat which would then cause a huge amount of evaporation and release water vapour into the air (water vapour is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2). The insulating effect of the water vapour would cause global warming on a massive scale. This together with the outpouring of CO2 and CH4 from the various volcanic extrusions and would cause a massive increase in global temperature. The athmosphere based on the level of water present on earth at the time of the flood would also become incredibly thick and dense and so exert immense pressure on the planet. (WE are probably going to be talking a venus like atmospheric pressure, and so enough to crush a submarine). Themelting of all ice on the planet would also be disastrous as there would be extreme oxygen stratification of the oceans due to the disruption of the thermohaline currents, this would serve tocompound the effect of the ridiculously waters of the flood and cause a catastrophic anoxic event which would not allow benthic and deep water organisms to survive. But this would not even need to happen since most life f not all would not survive due to the inhospitable climate and pressures that would result from a global flood and extremely (fantastically) energetic tectonic processes.
So if anyone would like to explain how it is possible for life to have actually survived such a hell on earth I would love to know. It is just not feasible that this happened at all and I reiterate my previous comment that the the story is just a story and that paper does not refuse ink!

you are actually scaring me. Even though this did not happen in the past with the whole noah and the flood malark it could actually happen in the future through humanity's own ignorance to global warming. such a small planet with such a large number of destructive humans.

Eschatologist

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah no, it would be alright if it was salty, surely? Admittedly it would have been in the water for more than a month, but the salt would have helped preserve it.

amused,
Scofflaw

Hey, let's not forget JC's brilliant 'explanation' for the lead and zinc deposits at Tara Mines - remember, the brines of the Flood waters must have been extremely metaliferous to deposit the ore currently being mined today, and if that's extrapolated to every ore deposit around the world and types of metal... well, I imagine all that carrion would be pretty contaminated and not very edible. Mmmm, platinum-infused plesiosaur carcass...

robindch

pH wrote: »

I must say I'm pretty convinced by the whole fish eating carnivores thing...

Well, all cats like fish and all lions are cats. Stands to syllogistic reason really, doesn't it?

btw, is that some bow-legged scientist type in the background of that photo? Brave chap, whoever he is. That tiger looks like he's got a real bad headache.

robindch

2Scoops wrote: »

With all the turbulent waters and super-heated magma cooling, surely they would be killed?

I'm inclined to think that they'd be cooked, and with all the brimstone flying around, they'd be smoked too. Leaving us with the world's squirrels stuffing themselves with smoked salmon until there were enough rabbits to go around. This Creation Science(tm) is fun! And yummy too!

Ekancone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah no, it would be alright if it was salty, surely? Admittedly it would have been in the water for more than a month, but the salt would have helped preserve it.

amused,
Scofflaw

Drat! Those crafty creationists!

Ekancone

robindch wrote: »

I'm inclined to think that they'd be cooked, and with all the brimstone flying around, they'd be smoked too. Leaving us with the world's squirrels stuffing themselves with smoked salmon until there were enough rabbits to go around. This Creation Science(tm) is fun! And yummy too!

Thank god for rabbits, eh?

wolfsbane

bogwalrus wrote: »

Well firstly what exactly do we mean by a fractured view on life?

It is very fair to say that everyone has their own view on life on a personal level. Then in certain communities like catholic ones you would have a shared view on life where laws and moral codes preached by the church are the foundation of this shared view.

But when we start to bring in the world and its many different cultures it is apparent that the tribes in the many jungles of the world, the islamic fundamentalists and all other types of communities and cultures can all have very different views on life. Morals can also differ greatly depending on social conditioning via laws,culture etc (like the extreme sharia laws where some1 in the west would consider such laws barbaric etc)

I suppose what i am getting at is that shared morals is what gives people a similar view on life but conditioning and corrupt societies lead by people like hitler and pol pot (who obviously had a messed up moral compass) is what damages the image of the culture not necessarily the view of life of each individual. it is just a regime influencing on a culture.

Just because everyone has the same shared view on life does not mean that it is the best view on life for humanity. Materialsim seems to be a bi-product of the current view on life imo. Another cultures "different" view on life may seem more unethical but might be better for humanity and a better environment to nurcher morality.

I assume he meant a false, or faulty, broken view of reality.

How popular or unpopular a world-view is has no bearing on its veracity or even its utility. But equally all views but the one that matches reality are necessarily 'fractured'.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

I assume he meant a false, or faulty, broken view of reality.

How popular or unpopular a world-view is has no bearing on its veracity or even its utility. But equally all views but the one that matches reality are necessarily 'fractured'.

Define reality in that context. You are making a very complex issue seem black and white.

J C

…this thread has had more new posts and pages added since I went to work this morning……than most threads generate in their entire 'lives'!!!!!!!!!:eek:

pH wrote: »

I must say I'm pretty convinced by the whole fish eating carnivores thing, after all there is this ...



And I mean, what more evidence could a creationist need?

......a LOT MORE!!!!!!:eek:

......as you are about to find out!!!:D

PDN
A great flood, when receding, would leave numerous temporary lakes with fish and other aquatic creatures trapped. Eventually the water would evaporate, leaving their contents stranded. You can see a similar process, on a much smaller scale, on many beaches. I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that such a process could provide carnivores with a plentiful supply of stranded fresh fish, dolphins, crustaceans etc until some of the faster breeding species (such as rabbits) multiplied sufficiently to provide a sustainable food source.

Robin
Most carnivores do not eat rotten meat

Many carnivores WILL eat carrion……..BUT, in any event, PDN wasn’t talking about rotten meat……he was pointing to the likelihood of significant supplies of live meat in the form of stranded fish and marine mammals!!!!!:cool:

Wicknight
They may eat fish, the question is whether they could survive doing so. They can't, as lions need a certain protein (its been reference on this thread before in response to these types of assertions). This was demonstrated by the odd vegetarian lion you get in zoos, such as the famous one Creationists love to quote from London Zoo. There the handlers had to give the lion supplements of this protein to stop the lion dying.

….ah yes, the “great Taurine deficient Lion of London Zoo”!!!!!!!!!!!:)

……could I suggest that such inability to synthesise Taurine was caused by a post-Flood (deleterious) MUTATION……which probably DIDN’T afflict the founder population of post-Flood Big Cats!!!!

…..and here, for all those who still wonder what the Big Cat Kind ate on Noah’s Ark, is the amazing stories of two VEGETARIAN Lions……..!!!!:eek:

…….one which remained a veggie all her life
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/272

……..and another one that ate mostly pasta and spaghetti for the first seven years of her life…….and lived to tell the tale!!!!
http://www.themauisunnews.org/features/spaghetti-kid.html

PDN
Take a walk along a beach after high tide. You find pools of water with fish and other aquatic life stranded in them. There were many reports of similar occurrences after the 2004 Tsunami in Asia (sharks in swimming pools etc). It is perfectly reasonable to assume that something similar, but on a bigger scale, would happen after a catastrophic flood.

…..a very reasonable conclusion based on repeatably observable EVIDENCE and the appliance of basic LOGIC……..

……….but PDN, please bear in mind that the Atheists on this thread reject the possibility of Noah’s Flood occurring for FAITH and EMOTIONALLY BASED reasons…….and NOT because of evidence or logic......
........FAITH (that God doesn’t exist) and EMOTION (that they therefore don’t have to account to God)!!!!!!:eek:

.....facts or observations that are not in accord with the Atheist Worldview are simply 'airbrushed' out of their minds!!!:D

PDN
The Wildlife Institute of India, in an article on Yellowstone National Park, says: It is a well-established fact that the grizzlies thrived well in places where there was additional food in the form of salmon aggregations or beached whales

………we can all turn on our TV sets and watch Bears become overweight from eating Salmon…….and the Fishing Cats catching fish under-water...
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/AsiaTrail/FishingCats/factsheet.cfm
…..BUT the Atheists will still NOT believe that Lions could or would eat fresh fish……..

….even when they CAN see a cat fishing……..with their own eyes……….such are the DENIAL levels of the Atheists…..
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/AsiaTrail/FishingCats/fishing/


………OK…..tell you what ….I will perform a scientific experiment right HERE right NOW……..

………”here Kitty, Kitty………..some salmon Kitty, Kitty”………..Oh, what a hungry cat you ARE………I didn’t want you to take ALL of it…………..BOLD Cat……that Salmon was all I had for my Supper”……..!!!!

……(Cat runs off with Salmon in mouth...growling as she goes!!!!)

…….ah……the sacrifices I make for Science!!!!!!:eek::D

......and it was all YOUR fault PDN for raising the question of whether a cat will eat fish!!!!!!:eek::D

sdep
[From answersindarwin.org]

Arguments we think evolutionists should NOT use:

The dining habits of lions are not to be considered in the first rank of evidences against Noye's Fludde. The lions could have eaten man[n]atees:
Origins[7:178] - Nor must we overlook the fact, that increased bulk would act as a protection against almost all beasts of prey excepting the lion

……good advice sdep……….
........and IF I had only read sdep’s Posting ............I could have saved the only piece of Salmon I had in the house.......for my Supper…….........

.......rather than performing that ill-advised experiment.......with my cat!!!!!:eek::D

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Thank god for rabbits, eh?

......and IF you were a hungry Post-Flood Big Cat you would also thank God for stranded fish......and aquatic mammals........and EVEN Termites!!!!!:eek::D:):p

J C

Eschatologist wrote: »

Hey, let's not forget JC's brilliant 'explanation' for the lead and zinc deposits at Tara Mines - remember, the brines of the Flood waters must have been extremely metaliferous to deposit the ore currently being mined today, and if that's extrapolated to every ore deposit around the world and types of metal... well, I imagine all that carrion would be pretty contaminated and not very edible. Mmmm, platinum-infused plesiosaur carcass...

.......could I gently point out that mineral deposits are LOCALISED and ISOLATED......so stop behaving like Chicken Licken.......and worrying about the SEA 'falling in'!!!!!

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

Hey, let's not forget JC's brilliant 'explanation' for the lead and zinc deposits at Tara Mines - remember, the brines of the Flood waters must have been extremely metaliferous to deposit the ore currently being mined today, and if that's extrapolated to every ore deposit around the world and types of metal... well, I imagine all that carrion would be pretty contaminated and not very edible. Mmmm, platinum-infused plesiosaur carcass...

.......could I gently point out that mineral deposits are LOCALISED and ISOLATED......so stop behaving like Chicken Licken.......and worrying about the SEA 'falling in'!!!!!

Localised and isolated by what, exactly?

interested,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

.......could I gently point out that mineral deposits are LOCALISED and ISOLATED......so stop behaving like Chicken Licken.......and worrying about the SEA 'falling in'!!!!!

Dodging the question again. You still haven't address most of the geological questions posed to you Mr. "Geologist".

Eschatologist

J C wrote: »

.......could I gently point out that mineral deposits are LOCALISED and ISOLATED......so stop behaving like Chicken Licken.......and worrying about the SEA 'falling in'!!!!!

Could I gently point out to you that I was being sarcastic.

Eschatologist

Thank you for comparing me to Chicken Licken JC. That was me being sarcastic again, in case you couldn't tell. I was unaware of the Chicken Licken story until your kind comparision and looked it up.

To quote Wikipedia: '... a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent ... in other versions the moral is usually interpreted to mean "do not believe everything you are told" ... it could well be a cautionary political tale: Chicken Licken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit.'

Wow. And this assertation is reflected in the content of my humble number of posts how? Sounds more like a manipulative social tool from the fundamentalist religious right than a scientist discussing the flaws in your argument in an open discussion.

Or is a sound scientific argument (on my part anyway) your definition of hysteria? I think you are the one being hysterical JC, and avoiding the questions again.

"do not believe everything you are told". I know Wikipedia. But it seems to me that creationists are under the delusion that this statement applies to all of humankind except themselves.

Hot Dog

JC, a man of your vast geological expertise is wasted here, posting against heathens on boards.ie, you must travel to the arid outback of Australia where the mineral business is full swing. A man of your ability coupled with your sage advice on ore genesis could make a fortune beyond the dreams of avarice. I simply cannot allow you to waste you talents here! Go, go I say!

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

What corner PDN? What corner? The only painting i was doing were circles around you.

The only circles I see are in your logic.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

The only circles I see are in your logic.

Sorry matey, but there are 2/3 pages of reasons as to why your logic was faulty. I win, you lose.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Sorry matey, but there are 2/3 pages of reasons as to why your logic was faulty. I win, you lose.

Not at all. There has been no coherent reason given as to why carnivores would have had to live on air.

Instead we have had the following kind of dishonest nonsense.

Example #1
PDN: Carnivores could eat fish, carrion or aquatic animals (one example of which is beached whales).
Robin: Not if history proves that carnivores don't eat beached whales. (note the clumsy intellectual sleight of hand - ignoring everything except the beached whales).
PDN: Well, actually we know that grizzly bears eat beached whales, so history proves no such thing.
Wicknight: Don't be silly. Robin wasn't saying that no carnivore has ever eaten a beached whale. (In which case Robin was simply saying that history shows that sometimes some carnivores don't eat some beached whales - which hardly makes a devastating case).

Example #2
PDN: Carnivores could eat fish, carrion or aquatic animals.
daithifleming: So you think lions can swim and eat fish. (Ignoring all other aquatic animals, also ignoring the fact that there are more ways to find a fish than to go swimming).

Example #3
PDN: A receding flood would leave aquatic life trapped in pools that could conceivably provide a food source until fast-breeding animals (Rabbits would be one example) reached sustainable levels to provide prey.
daithifleming: Lions could not live on a diet of rabbits because nutritional value of a rabbit would not justify the energy expended to catch a rabbit. (Now ignoring every carnivore except lions, and ignoring the fact that rabbits were cited as just one example of a fast breeding species).

If you think that kind of thing constitutes victory in a debate then I have no inclination to disillusion you. Pearls & swine etc.

Ekancone

Sorry, but i still think you are talking utter nonsense. It got even worse when you brought up the faulty logic of debating this with creationists who have god as their preposition.